ACIT-3(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. GENTEX MERCHANTS PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

Appeal of the revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Jm

house property in terms of Section 23 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Satya & Co. Ltd. 75 Taxman 193

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-6(1), MUMBAI vs. NEEPA REAL ESTATES PVT LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalassessment Years: 2017-18 The Deputy Commissioner M/S. Neepa Real Estates Of Income Tax, Pvt. Ltd., 12Th Floor, Hallmark Central Circle -6(1), Room No. 1905, Business Plaza, Vs. 19Th Floor, Sang Dnyaneshwar Marg, Air India Building, Near Gurunanak Hospital, Nariman Point, Bandra East, Mumbai- 400 021 Mumbai- 400 051 Pan: Aaacn1884C (Appellant) (Respondent)

section so as to provide that where the house property consisting of any building and land appurtenant thereto is held as stock- in-trade and the property or any part of the property is not let during the whole or any part of the previous year, the annual value of such property or part of the property, for the period

TODI INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER - 8(3)(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

section. Conversely, if the dominant\nintention of the assessee is to exploit a commercial asset, the\nincome received should be treated as income from business. The\nassessee has not shown that its dominant intention was to\nexploit the asset commercially. He further referred to the case of\nM/s Shambhu Investment (P) Ltd.(249 ITR 47), and held that\nalthough

DY CIT DD-4(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S SHETH DEVELOPERS P. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

house property’. This action of the ld. AO was upheld by the ld. CIT(A). 3.1. It is not in dispute that the unsold flats lying in the balance sheet with the assessee were held as stock in trade by the assessee. It is not in dispute that the sale of flats shall be assessable as business income

M/S SHETH DEVELOPERS P. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT CENTRAL CIRCLE- 4(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

house property’. This action of the ld. AO was upheld by the ld. CIT(A). 3.1. It is not in dispute that the unsold flats lying in the balance sheet with the assessee were held as stock in trade by the assessee. It is not in dispute that the sale of flats shall be assessable as business income

SHETH DEVELOPERS P. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIECLE-4(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

house property’. This action of the ld. AO was upheld by the ld. CIT(A). 3.1. It is not in dispute that the unsold flats lying in the balance sheet with the assessee were held as stock in trade by the assessee. It is not in dispute that the sale of flats shall be assessable as business income

DY CIT DD-4(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S SHETH DEVELOPERS P. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

house property’. This action of the ld. AO was upheld by the ld. CIT(A). 3.1. It is not in dispute that the unsold flats lying in the balance sheet with the assessee were held as stock in trade by the assessee. It is not in dispute that the sale of flats shall be assessable as business income

DCIT- 8(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. PIRAMAL ESTATES PRIVATE LIMITED , MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

section 14A by Finance Act 2022 is retrospective.\n(ix) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(A)\nerred in allowing the sales promotion expenses incurred for Thane Project\nas revenue expenses allowable u/s 37 of the Act. The CIT(A) further erred\nin not treating the sales promotion expenses as part

ACIT-3(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S GENTEX MERCHANTS PRIVATE LMITED, MUMBAI

house property in terms of Section 23 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT v. Satya & Co. Ltd. [1994] 75 Taxman 193

M/S. NICHOLAS PIRAMAL INDIA LTD,MUMBAI vs. THE ACIT CUR 7(1),

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri S Rifaur Rahmanpiramal Enterprises Ltd Vs. Acit, Circle – 7(1) (Formerly Known As Aayakar Bhavan Piramal Healthcare Ltd) Mumbai – 400020. (Before Known As Nicholas Piramal Ind) Piramal Tower, Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai – 400013. Pan/Gir No. : Aaacn4538P Appellant .. Respondent Dcit, Circle – 7(1) Vs. Piramal Enterprises Ltd Aayakar Bhyavan (Formerly Known As Mumbai – 400 020. Piramal Healthcare Ltd) (Before Known As Nicholas Piramal Ind) Piramal Tower, Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai – 400 013. Pan/Gir No. : Aaacn4538P Assessee By : Mr.Ronak Doshi & Ms.Manshi Padhiyar.Ar Revenue By : Mr.S.N.Kabra.Dr

House Property. The Cit(A) has considered the factual aspects and made a reasonable observations and granted the relief. We find the revenue could controvert on the findings of the CIT(A) on this disputed issue. Accordingly,we fallow the judicial precedence of ratio of the ITAT decision and dismiss the ground of appeal of the revenue. 19. The seventh

ADDL CIT RG 7(1), MUMBAI vs. PIRAMAL ENTERPRISES LTD (FORMERLY KNWON AS PIRAMAL HEALTHCARE LTD) (AS ULTIMATE SUCCESSOR TO NICHOLAS PIRAMAL INDIA LTD), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri S Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2005-06 M/S. Piramal Enterprises Dy. Commissioner Of Limited (Formerly Known Income Tax, As Piramal Healthcare Range-8(2)(1), Limited) (Earlier Known As Mumbai. Nicholas Piramal India Ltd.), Vs. Piramal Tower, Agastya Corporate Park, Lbs Marg, Kamani Junction, Kurla (West), Mumbai – 400 070 Pan: Aaacn4538P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2005-06 Dy. Commissioner Of M/S. Piramal Enterprises Income Tax, Limited (Formerly Known Circle-8(2)(1), As Piramal Healthcare [Erstwhile Dcit Circle- Ltd.) (As Ultimate 7(1)], Successor To Nicholas Vs. Mumbai. Piramal India Ltd.), Piramal Tower, Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai – 400 013 Pan: Aaacn4538P (Appellant) (Respondent)

house property. So in view of the matter ground No.2 raised by the Revenue is also dismissed. Ground Nos.3 & 4 80. The assessee company has claimed deduction under section 35A qua acquisition of trade mark by M/s. Sarabhai Piramal Pharmaceuticals Ltd. (SPPL) which has been merged with the assessee. The AO disallowed the same. 81. It is again brought

PIRAMAL HEALTHCARE LTD ( EARLIER KNOWNAS NICHOLAS PIRAMAL INDIA LTD),MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT 7(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri S Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2005-06 M/S. Piramal Enterprises Dy. Commissioner Of Limited (Formerly Known Income Tax, As Piramal Healthcare Range-8(2)(1), Limited) (Earlier Known As Mumbai. Nicholas Piramal India Ltd.), Vs. Piramal Tower, Agastya Corporate Park, Lbs Marg, Kamani Junction, Kurla (West), Mumbai – 400 070 Pan: Aaacn4538P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2005-06 Dy. Commissioner Of M/S. Piramal Enterprises Income Tax, Limited (Formerly Known Circle-8(2)(1), As Piramal Healthcare [Erstwhile Dcit Circle- Ltd.) (As Ultimate 7(1)], Successor To Nicholas Vs. Mumbai. Piramal India Ltd.), Piramal Tower, Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai – 400 013 Pan: Aaacn4538P (Appellant) (Respondent)

house property. So in view of the matter ground No.2 raised by the Revenue is also dismissed. Ground Nos.3 & 4 80. The assessee company has claimed deduction under section 35A qua acquisition of trade mark by M/s. Sarabhai Piramal Pharmaceuticals Ltd. (SPPL) which has been merged with the assessee. The AO disallowed the same. 81. It is again brought

DCIT- 8(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. PIRAMAL ESTATES PRIVATE LIMITED , MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Rahul Chaudhary

section 14A by Finance Act 2022 is retrospective. (ix) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(A) erred in allowing the sales promotion expenses incurred for Thane Project as revenue expenses allowable u/s 37 of the Act. The CIT(A) further erred in not treating the sales promotion expenses as part

ACIT-3(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S GEMTEX MERCHANTS PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1270/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Acit-3(1)(1) बिधम/ M/S. Gentex Merchants Room No. 607, 6Th Floor, Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. 81, Maker Chambers-Iii, Road, Mumbai-400020. 223, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabcg1491M (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Anuj Kisnadwala Revenue By: Dr. Kishor Dhule (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 04/07/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 20/07/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax/Nfac, Delhi Dated 20.02.2023 For Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The First Ground Of Appeal Of The Revenue Is Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) Restricting The Annual Value Of The Property Let Out At Rs.1,20,00,000/- As Against Rs.14,14,94,120/- Determined By The Ao. 3. Brief Facts Are That The Assessee Company Had Filed Its Return Of Income For Ay. 2012-13 On 29.09.2012 Declaring A Total Loss Of (Rs.2,14,60,919/-). The Ao Noted That The Assessee Has Declared Income From Two Heads Of Income Viz. Income From House Property & Income From Business & Profession. & That The Assessee Company Owned A Residential Property At 22, Aurangazeb Road, New Delhi. & That The Assessee Has Let Out The Said Property On Rent Of Rs.1,20,00,000/- For The Year. Further The Assessee Also Charged A Fixed

house property in terms of Section 23 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Satya & Co. Ltd. 75 Taxman 193

TATA SONS LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ACIT,CIR 2(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

house property'. We find that the Id. AR referred to the decision rendered in group companies case of the assessee by this Tribunal in the case of Ewart Investments Ltd., vs. DCIT in ITA No.3623/Mum/2017 dated 28/02/2019 for A.Y.2012-13 wherein this issue was restored to the file of the Id. AO. The Id. AR fairly prayed for similar direction

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-2(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. TATA SONS LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

house property'. We find that the Id. AR referred to the decision rendered in group companies case of the assessee by this Tribunal in the case of Ewart Investments Ltd., vs. DCIT in ITA No.3623/Mum/2017 dated 28/02/2019 for A.Y.2012-13 wherein this issue was restored to the file of the Id. AO. The Id. AR fairly prayed for similar direction

NATIONAL STOCK EXCHANGE OF INDIA LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CIR-7(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result ground no.1 of the appeal of the assessee is allowed and grounds no

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singhita Nos.730 & 731/Mum/2023 (A.Ys. 2016-17 & 2017-18) National Stock Exchange Vs. Dcit, Circle 7(1)(1) Of India Limited Room No. 126, 1 St Floor, Exchange Plaza, Bandra Aaykar Bhavan, Kurla Complex, Bandra M.K. Road, East, Mumbai – 400051 Churchgate -400 020 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaacn1797L Appellant .. Respondent

House Property: 36. Similar issue on identical facts have been adjudicated in ground no. 3 vide ITA No. 730/Mum/2023 as supra in this order, therefore, applying these findings mutatis mutandis this ground of appeal of the assessee is also allowed for statistical purpose. Ground No. 2: 37. The assessee has suo moto disallowed the expenses of Rs.2

PEGASUS PROPERTIES P. LTD.,PUNE vs. DY CIT, CC-2(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble

house property’. The provisions of Section 23(4) of the Act are meant only for properties that are held as investments and not as stock in trade. We find that decision rendered by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Mangla Homes Pvt. Ltd., reported in 325 ITR 281 would not be applicable in the instant case

SAURASHTRA TRUST,MUMBAI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 263 of the Act. In such matters, to remand the matter/ssie to the Assessing Office and mean the Commissioner of Income tax has not examined and decided whether or not the order is erroneous but has directed the Assessing Officer to decide the aspect/question….” 15 A.Y. 2017-18 Saurashtra Trust Similar view has been expressed by Hon’ble Madras